Platinum Priority – Prostate Cancer Editorial by Prokar Dasgupta on pp. 671–672 of this issue Short-term Results after Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Compared to Open Radical Prostatectomy Anna Wallerstedt a, *, Stavros I. Tyritzis a , Thordis Thorsteinsdottir b,c , Stefan Carlsson a , Johan Stranne d , Ove Gustafsson e , Jonas Hugosson d , Anders Bjartell f , Ulrica Wildera ¨ng b , N. Peter Wiklund a , Gunnar Steineck b,g , Eva Haglind h , on behalf of the LAPPRO steering committee a Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden; b Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; c Faculty of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland; d Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; e Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden; f Department of Urology, Ska ˚ne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; g Department of Oncology and Pathology, Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden; h Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden EUROPEAN UROLOGY 67 (2015) 660–670 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.europeanurology.com Article info Article history: Accepted September 23, 2014 Keywords: Radical prostatectomy Open Robot-assisted Complications Short-term results Abstract Background: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become a wide- spread technique despite a lack of randomised trials showing its superiority over open radical prostatectomy. Objective: To compare in-hospital characteristics and patient-reported outcomes at 3 mo between robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Design, setting, and participants: A prospective, controlled trial was performed of all men who underwent radical prostatectomy at 14 participating centres. Validated patient questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 3 mo by independent health-care researchers. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The difference in outcome between the two treatment groups were analysed using logistic regression analysis, with adjustment for identified confounders. Results and limitations: Questionnaires were received from 2506 (95%) patients. The robot-assisted surgery group had less perioperative bleeding (185 vs 683 ml, p <0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.3 vs 4.1 d, p < 0.001) than the open surgery group. Operating time was shorter with the open technique (103 vs 175 min, p < 0.001) compared with the robot-assisted technique. Reoperation during initial hospital stay was more frequent after open surgery after adjusting for tumour characteristics and lymph node dissection (1.6% vs 0.7%, odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI 95%] 0.11–0.90). Men who underwent open surgery were more likely to seek healthcare (for one or more of 22 specified disorders identified prestudy) compared to men in the robot-assisted surgery group ( p = 0.03). It was more common to seek healthcare for cardiovascular reasons in the open surgery group than in the robot-assisted surgery group, after adjusting for nontumour and tumour-specific confounders, (7.9% vs 5.8%, OR 0.63, CI 95% 0.42–0.94). The readmittance rate was not statistically different between the * Corresponding author. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail address: anna.wallerstedt@karolinska.se (A. Wallerstedt). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.036 0302-2838/# 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.